DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “Antiferromagnetic layer (AFM)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic et al, US Patent 9,830,966
Regarding claim 9, Mihajlovic teaches a magnetic memory device, comprising:
a spin pumping structure comprising an antiferromagnetic layer 202 and a non-magnetic conductive layer 304; and
a magnetic tunnel junction structure disposed on the spin pumping structure and comprising a free magnetic layer 104, an insulator layer 106, and a fixed magnetic layer 108,
wherein the non-magnetic conductive layer is configured to receive electric power to generate a first spin current and a second spin current by the spin Hall effect,
wherein the antiferromagnetic layer is configured to receive the first spin current to generate a third spin current by spin pumping, wherein the free magnetic layer is configured to receive the second spin current and the third spin current, and
wherein a magnetization direction of the free magnetic layer is switched by the second spin current and the third spin current (figure 3).
Note: in reference to the claimed limitations of
“wherein the non-magnetic conductive layer is configured to receive electric power to generate a first spin current and a second spin current by the spin Hall effect”
“wherein the antiferromagnetic layer is configured to receive the first spin current to generate a third spin current by spin pumping”,
“wherein the free magnetic layer is configured to receive the second spin current and the third spin current, and wherein a magnetization direction of the free magnetic layer is switched by the second spin current and the third spin current”,
MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Regarding claim 10, Mihajlovic teaches a first unit vector is defined to be parallel to at least one of an easy magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer and a hard magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer, wherein a second unit vector is defined to be configured with component vectors of the first unit vector that are perpendicular to at least one of a direction of the first spin current, a direction of the second spin current, and a direction of the third spin current, wherein a third unit vector is defined to be parallel to a polarization direction of the first spin current, and wherein a dot product of the second unit vector and the third unit vector is a first value, and an absolute value of the first value is greater than 0 and smaller than or equal to 1.
Note: In reference to these claimed limitations, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Regarding claim 11, Mihajlovic teaches a first electrode 210 electrically connected to the non-magnetic conductive layer (via layer 306); and a power supply unit 2, 3, configured for providing electric power to the non-magnetic conductive layer via the first electrode (figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Mihajlovic teaches the first electrode comprises at least one of Cu, Ta, Pt, W, Ti, Bi, and Ir (column 5,lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 14, Mihajlovic teaches the antiferromagnetic layer comprises at least one of Ru, Ir, Pt, Mn, Cr, FeMn, NiO, and Fe2O3 or at least one oxide thereof (column 5, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Mihajlovic teaches the non-magnetic conductive layer comprises at least one of Cu, Ta, Pt, W, Ti, and Bi (column 4, line 41-43) .
Regarding claim 16, Mihajlovic teaches a magnetic memory device, comprising:
an antiferromagnetic layer 202;
a non-magnetic conductive layer 304 disposed on the antiferromagnetic layer;
a ferromagnetic layer 104 disposed on the non-magnetic conductive layer; and
a first electrode 210 disposed on the antiferromagnetic layer and being in contact with one face of the non-magnetic conductive layer, wherein an in-plane current is introduced into the non-magnetic conductive layer via the first electrode (through layer 306),
and an input-spin current generated by the in-plane current is provided to the antiferromagnetic layer,
wherein a first unit vector is defined to be parallel to at least one of an easy magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer and a hard magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer,
wherein a second unit vector is defined to be configured with component vectors of the first unit vector that are perpendicular to the input-spin current,
wherein a third unit vector is defined to be parallel to a polarization direction of the input-spin current,
wherein a dot product of the second unit vector and the third unit vector is a first value, and an absolute value of the first value is greater than 0 and smaller than or equal to 1,
wherein the ferromagnetic layer is a thin film comprising a material of which an easy magnetization axis direction is perpendicular to a direction of the in-plane current and a polarization direction of the input-spin current,
wherein the input-spin current causes a precessional motion of a magnetization of a sub-lattice of the antiferromagnetic layer, and the precessional motion of a magnetization causes spin pumping in the antiferromagnetic layer, and an output-spin current caused by the spin pumping passes through the non-magnetic conductive layer to be provided to the ferromagnetic layer, and
wherein the output-spin current comprises spin current components polarized in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the in-plane current and a polarization direction of the input-spin current (figure 3).
Note: in reference to the claimed limitations of
and an input-spin current generated by the in-plane current is provided to the antiferromagnetic layer,
wherein a first unit vector is defined to be parallel to at least one of an easy magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer and a hard magnetization axis of the antiferromagnetic layer,
wherein a second unit vector is defined to be configured with component vectors of the first unit vector that are perpendicular to the input-spin current,
wherein a third unit vector is defined to be parallel to a polarization direction of the input-spin current,
wherein a dot product of the second unit vector and the third unit vector is a first value, and an absolute value of the first value is greater than 0 and smaller than or equal to 1,
wherein the ferromagnetic layer is a thin film comprising a material of which an easy magnetization axis direction is perpendicular to a direction of the in-plane current and a polarization direction of the input-spin current,
wherein the input-spin current causes a precessional motion of a magnetization of a sub-lattice of the antiferromagnetic layer, and the precessional motion of a magnetization causes spin pumping in the antiferromagnetic layer, and an output-spin current caused by the spin pumping passes through the non-magnetic conductive layer to be provided to the ferromagnetic layer, and
wherein the output-spin current comprises spin current components polarized in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the in-plane current and a polarization direction of the input-spin current.
MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Regarding claim 17, Mihajlovic teaches comprising an insulator layer 106 and a fixed magnetic layer 108 , wherein the ferromagnetic layer is a free magnetic layer of a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) (figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Mihajlovic teaches the non-magnetic conductive device comprises at least one of Cu, Ta, Pt, W, Ti, and Bi (column 4, line 41-43) .
Regarding claim 20, Mihajlovic teaches the antiferromagnetic layer comprises at least one of Ru, Ir, Pt, Mn, Cr, FeMn, NiO, and Fe2O3 or at least one oxide thereof (column 5, lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic as applied to claim 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Klostermann et al, US Patent Application Publication 2009/0073737.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Mihajlovic fails to teach each the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer comprises at least one of Fe, Co, Ni, B, Si, and Zr.
However, Klostermann teaches that Fe, Co, Ni, and Zr are several materials conventionally-used in the art for making the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer (see [0065,0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Klostermann with that of Mihajlovic because Fe, Co, Ni, and Zr are several materials conventionally-used in the art for making the free magnetic layer and the fixed magnetic layer
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...an antiferromagnetic layer being in contact with one face of the non-magnetic conductive layer and configured to receive the first spin current to generate a third spin current by spin pumping….” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 1, Mihajlovic teaches a magnetic memory device, comprising:
a non-magnetic conductive layer 304 configured to receive electric power to generate a first spin current and a second spin current by the spin Hall effect;
a free magnetic layer 104 with one face thereof being in contact with the other face of the non-magnetic conductive layer and configured to receive the second spin current,
wherein a magnetization direction of the free magnetic layer is switched by the second spin current and the third spin current (figure 3).
Note: in reference to the claimed limitations of “the free magnetic layer is configured to receive the second spin current, wherein a magnetization direction of the free magnetic layer is switched by the second spin current and the third spin current”
MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Mihajlovic fails to teach an antiferromagnetic layer being in contact with one face of the non-magnetic conductive layer and configured to receive the first spin current to generate a third spin current by spin pumping. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of these claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 1-8 have been found to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hong, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0103553, discloses a spin-orbit torque magnetic drive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights